{"id":1696,"date":"2009-02-10T04:14:56","date_gmt":"2009-02-10T04:14:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/2009\/02\/10\/cancer_stem_cells_the_wrong_kind_of_controversy\/"},"modified":"2009-02-10T04:14:56","modified_gmt":"2009-02-10T04:14:56","slug":"cancer_stem_cells_the_wrong_kind_of_controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/2009\/02\/10\/cancer_stem_cells_the_wrong_kind_of_controversy\/","title":{"rendered":"Cancer stem cells: the wrong kind of controversy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I attended my first ever Caf\u00e9 Scientifique<\/a> event last week. The venue<\/a> could not be faulted \u2013 a brew pub with good food, outstanding beer, and a view of the harbour and the North Shore mountains. However there were a couple of barriers to the organisation’s stated aim of \u201cpromoting public engagement with science and [\u2026] making science accountable\u201d.<\/p>\n


\nThe first was that most of the audience were scientists \u2013 I’ve been for after-work beers with at least seven of them, and there were several other familiar faces dotted about the room. My friend and I chatted to the organisers after the event, and asked them how they had advertised the evening. Mass all-staff emails had been sent around my workplace and around several other large academic research centres, attracting plenty of local scientists to the event. There had apparently been an advert in one local free paper, but I had only heard about the event through scientific channels. There is a Facebook group, but again it is populated largely by scientists. Perhaps an appearance by one of the experts on the local morning TV news might have brought more non-scientists into the mix.
\nThe second obstacle was the talk’s title, Stopping cancer where it starts: Do recently-discovered cancer stem cells hold the key?<\/a>. Cancer stem cells are one of the hottest and most controversial topics in cancer research, as evidenced by a multitude of recent high-profile research papers and reviews1<\/a><\/sup>. Hell, even the name is controversial, with many researchers preferring variations on \u201ctumour initiating cells\u201d. Even better, much of the early work in the field was done in Canada \u2013 perfect for a Vancouver audience, right?
\nWrong.
\nWhile the talk was very interesting to me, I don’t think the non-scientists in the audience really grasped the nature of the controversy. The questions asked at the end suggested that half of them were there because they’d heard the word \u201ccancer\u201d, while the other half had heard \u201cstem cells\u201d, and that there was not much understanding of the nature or significance of the overlap between the two. It didn’t help that, due to the very preliminary nature of the hypothesis, hard evidence one way or the other is still in rather short supply. And non-scientists seem to prefer their experts to sound a little more convinced about their subject matter.
\nFor example, one question about the future benefits of cancer stem cell research resulted in a discussion about the very nature of scientific research and its translation to the clinic. People do need to know this \u2013 but it didn’t really answer the question. Surprisingly, none of the panelists mentioned the success of bone marrow transplants<\/a> and retinoic acid therapy<\/a> in the treatment of leukemia \u2013 successes that many scientists now believe to be due to the (originally almost inadvertent) targeting of cancer stem cells. Given the state of government support for research in Canada at the moment<\/a>, we need to trumpet the successes of past studies for all we’re worth.
\nSo what would<\/em> make a good Caf\u00e9 Scientifique topic?
\nPeople need to be able to relate to the topic, and join in the ensuing debate with a feeling of confidence. The discussion should not be limited only to the scientists in the audience, no matter how badly they want to discuss induced pluripotent stem cells. However, one of the organisers related a horror story of an earlier discussion about the ethics of stem cell research that had to be stopped due to one participant repeatedly screaming that these scientists were killing babies. Yes, these events should be open to all points of view, but not at the expense of reasonable and civilised debate.
\nOne idea that I had is the new Human Papilloma Virus vaccine<\/a> that protects against cervical (and penile) cancer. A presentation on the well-established science of the topic \u2013 how the virus causes cancer, how the vaccine works \u2013 could be followed by the kind of debate in which anyone can take part. Should vaccination be compulsory for girls enrolled in the public school system? How about boys \u2013 should they be vaccinated to help us reach herd immunity and provide further protection against cervical cancer? (penile cancer is a much rarer disease). Should we grant exemptions on religious or cultural grounds?
\nWhat do you think \u2013 what makes for a good juicy controversy at this level of public engagement?
\n—————————
\n(There must have been another public debate taking place in Vancouver that night, judging by the passengers on my bus. One guy was proudly wearing a Flying Spaghetti Monster<\/a> t-shirt, another had a God Squad hat. The girl opposite me was reading a pamphlet about the role of religion in society. I wondered if they’d been discussing the humanist bus advertising campaign<\/a>, which has finally (and controversially) reached these shores. I bet that<\/em> was a good debate.
\nI wonder if the Caf\u00e9 Scientifique event might have attracted more attention if it had advertised itself with \u201cThere’s probably no cancer stem cells. Now stop worrying and enjoy your government\u201d<\/strong>.)
\n(Edited to add:
\n\"\"
\nHa!)<\/p>\n

1<\/sup> Reviews:
\nCancer stem cells: a model in the making<\/a>\u201d, Lauren L Campbell Marotta & Kornelia Polyak, Current Opinion in Genetics and Development<\/em> 2008: 19:1-7
\nLooking ahead in cancer stem cell research<\/a>\u201d, John Dick, Nature Biotechnology<\/em> 2009: 1:44-46
\nYou can find the research papers yourselves, you lazy so-and-sos.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I attended my first ever Caf\u00e9 Scientifique event last week. The venue could not be faulted \u2013 a brew pub with good food, outstanding beer, and a view of the harbour and the North Shore mountains. However there were a … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}